Find Nearby Plumbers In Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia

Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension across all five reviews, but it is significantly dragged down by a 1-star review describing a no-call/no-show appointment with zero follow-up communication — a serious reliability failure. The three positive reviews praising professionalism are detailed and credible, but the no-show incident cannot be ignored. Project completion scores moderately; positive reviews describe work being finished thoroughly and even going beyond the original scope, but the no-show review represents a complete failure to complete any work at all. Pricing is mentioned positively in two older reviews describing services as reasonable, but with only two mentions this carries limited confidence. Experience scores reasonably well based on three reviews citing technical knowledge, code compliance, and effective problem-solving, though all supporting evidence comes from reviews dated 2018–2021.

• ALL reviews are dated between 2018 and 2021 — none are within the past 12 months. This score may not reflect current performance and should be treated with caution.
• The no-call/no-show incident (1-star, 2021-07-25) is the most recent review on record and represents a significant professionalism and reliability failure that warrants attention.
• The positive reviews, while detailed, span 2018–2021. The most recent positive review is from March 2021, meaning there is no recent evidence of consistent quality.
• Review volume is very low (5 total). Scores are based on limited data and should not be considered statistically reliable.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-low reliability due to a very small review sample of only 5 reviews, all of which are over three years old, with the most recent review being a serious no-show complaint — prospective customers should seek more current references before hiring.

Southern Heating and Air demonstrates solid professionalism with punctual arrivals, courteous staff, and clean work practices consistently noted across 11 reviews. Project completion is strong with most jobs finished on time and to customer satisfaction. However, pricing is a significant weakness, with 8 reviews explicitly criticizing excessive charges, inflated labor rates, and aggressive upselling tactics. The company appears to charge substantially above market rates for comparable work. Experience level is adequate but inconsistent—some technicians show strong problem-solving skills while others lack proper training and supervision. The recency of reviews is a concern, with most data from 2014–2017; only 2 reviews from 2022 and 2019 provide recent validation.

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2014–2018) document pricing 50–250% above competitor quotes for identical work. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 18 of 23 reviews are from 2017 or earlier. Only 2 reviews from 2019 onward. Current pricing and service practices may differ significantly.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: Reviews describe both excellent technicians (Jesse, Chris, Wayron) and poorly trained/unsupervised workers. Suggests inconsistent hiring or training standards.
• SAFETY INCIDENT: 2014 review documents property damage (fire caused by torch work) with no accountability or apology. Raises serious liability concerns.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Three reviews contain minimal detail ('Very well,' '.', 'No issues', 'unknown'). These provide no actionable data and inflate review count without substance.
• SERVICE FEE DISPUTES: Multiple reviews document $69 diagnostic/quote fees charged even when customer declines service, sometimes without clear upfront disclosure.

This score should be treated with caution due to heavy reliance on outdated reviews (78% from 2017 or earlier) and a consistent pattern of pricing complaints that may reflect systemic business practices. The professionalism and completion scores are moderately reliable, but the pricing dimension is a clear weakness that significantly impacts overall trustworthiness. Recent customer feedback is insufficient to confirm whether practices have improved.

Southern Maintenance Services shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is inconsistent—while many reviews praise politeness, punctuality, and responsiveness, critical failures in communication (missed callbacks, failure to follow up on estimates) significantly drag the score down. Project completion is similarly problematic, with multiple instances of abandoned work and unmet commitments, though some customers report excellent on-time delivery. Pricing appears fair and transparent based on limited mentions. Experience and workmanship quality are generally strong when work is actually completed. The company's reliability is undermined by serious follow-through issues that appear across multiple reviews spanning different years.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document failure to follow up on commitments (2011-09-01, 2017-02-15, 2011-08-10), suggesting systemic communication/project management problems.
• PROPERTY THEFT ALLEGATION: 2020-05-12 review alleges contractor took customer property (custom wall plates) and was rude when confronted—serious professionalism and ethics concern.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most detailed reviews are from 2011-2018; only 2 substantive reviews from 2020 or later, limiting ability to assess current performance.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Three reviews contain only 'unknown' text with ratings (2016, 2015, 2015)—these provide no usable data but were counted in total.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews praising excellent service and 1-star reviews documenting serious failures suggests either highly variable performance or potential selection bias in review submission.

This score should be treated with caution due to recency issues (most detailed reviews are 5+ years old), inconsistent performance patterns, and serious documented failures in project completion and follow-through that appear across multiple time periods.

All three reviews speak positively about Matt and Midlands Plumbing across multiple dimensions, including responsiveness, workmanship quality, and follow-through on commitments. Professionalism is consistently highlighted — Matt communicated clearly, showed up as promised, and left work areas clean. Project completion scores well given that all reviewed jobs were finished fully and on time. Pricing is noted favorably in two of three reviews, with one reviewer stating Midlands was half the cost of competitors, though only two mentions limits confidence in that dimension. Experience is reflected in praise for workmanship quality and technical explanation of issues, though the small review pool prevents a high-confidence assessment.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• Two of the three reviews are from 2018 and 2019, making them over 5 years old. Only one review (2024) falls within the past 12 months. Recency weighting significantly limits confidence in current service quality.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback. While the reviews do contain specific details (names, job types, timelines), the uniformly perfect ratings across a small sample warrants caution.
• Review from 2019 is notably brief and generic ('great job,' 'take pride in the work') with no specific details, which slightly raises a low-level concern about authenticity for that individual review.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, two of which are more than 5 years old, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current service quality.

Across five reviews, Mr. Rooter consistently receives praise for completing jobs effectively and solving real plumbing problems, from toilet replacement to sewer line descaling and drainage issues. Professionalism is noted in multiple reviews through descriptors like 'fast, efficient, and helpful' and genuine care for the customer's wellbeing. The one pricing reference is notably positive — a reviewer explicitly highlighted significant cost savings versus an alternative approach, suggesting strong value delivery. Technical experience is evidenced by specific problem-solving mentions, including epoxy coating of sewer lines and accurate diagnostics. However, the total review count is very low and spans seven years, limiting the reliability of these scores.

• Only 5 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• Review date range spans from 2017 to 2024, meaning some reviews are significantly outdated. The 2017 review is over 7 years old and carries reduced weight.
• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild caution.
• Small sample size means a single negative experience in the future could significantly shift scores.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 7 years and should be considered a preliminary signal only — more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted with confidence.

All four reviews mention professionalism positively, with words like 'professional,' 'prompt,' and 'friendly' appearing across multiple reviews, supporting a solid but not exceptional professionalism score. Pricing feedback is mixed — three reviews describe pricing as reasonable or affordable, but one reviewer noted the contractor was 'a little high' on a return visit, which tempers the pricing score. Project completion is supported by three reviews indicating work was completed correctly and without issues, though no review provides deep detail about complex or long-duration projects. Experience is mentioned in only two reviews, with one noting the contractor was 'very knowledgeable' and completed work quickly, warranting a conservative but positive score. Overall, the small review pool and all-older-than-12-months dates limit confidence in these findings.

• All 4 reviews are dated between November 2020 and February 2021 — none are within the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation date), significantly reducing recency relevance.
• Review pool is very small (4 reviews), which limits statistical reliability across all dimensions.
• Three of four reviews use similarly brief, generic positive language ('professional,' 'reasonable,' 'great') with limited specific detail, which slightly raises concern about depth of feedback, though not necessarily fake reviews.
• No review mentions follow-up work, callbacks, or long-term project outcomes, so project completion scoring is based on limited context.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — it is based on only 4 reviews, all more than 3 years old, providing insufficient data volume and recency to reliably represent the contractor's current performance.